Jump to content

Template talk:Gautrain route diagram

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

how to exit the train and the tunnel as quickly as possible when the train is having problems in a deep underground tunnel between Sandton and Park Stations and you are given a map and asked to lead the volunteers

Corrections

[edit]

Also refer to http://www.gautrain.co.za/index.php?pid=1372&ct=1&fid=4&click=4 for details of the route (Specifically, the detailed plans).

The Gautrain rail will follow the existing Metrorail reserve between Pretoria and Hatfield station, albeit on a completely separate set of tracks. The current route diagram gives the impression that the Gautrain will run on the same set of tracks between these stations. I do not have time to correct this now, though.

G.A.Stalk 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on the plans; I'll fix it now. ChrisDHDR 17:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some further corrections. Unfortunately, it seems that there is no icon for tunnel under motorway, as such the section where the tunnel passes under the M1 has been removed. (Note that it also passes East to West under the M1 between Park station and Rosebank(?).
Note that Viaduct 15 starts before Rhodesfield and crosses the R21 (Gauteng)/R24 (Gauteng) interchange, and terminates in the airport.
There are also articles for the major motorways, so I am unsure whether these are/should be linked to. (N3 Eastern Bypass (South Africa), M1 (Johannesburg), R21 (Gauteng)/R24 (Gauteng)).
Regards, G.A.Stalk 06:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I linked the highways - don't see why not - only beneficial. I think that it would be a good idea to put the highway above the tunnel (only beneficial) and it should be able using overlays. Unfortunately I don't have time now, so maybe I'll do it later (unless you beat me to it ;-) ). ChrisDHDR 11:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self: A table of icons are available at User:AlisonW/Rail Icons. I have updated the template with where the M1 crosses above the tunnel. G.A.Stalk 05:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The interactive map seems to of gotten more precise, so I've updated the Pretoria bit. I also see from the Via Michelin site that there are some stations betwenn Pretoria and Hatfield. Do you think that they should be included (I've added them for the moment)? ChrisDHDR 13:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This edit refers I think this is a bit overdone, as the Metrorail's stations are not notable for this article's purpose. It also over-emphasising this part of the route (5.7/80 km, but 8/~41 lines in the template). G.A.Stalk 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a side line: You might want to give http://www.gautrain.co.za/index.php?ct=1&pid=1839 a look. G.A.Stalk 15:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put the extra stations in a collapsible list: the diagram stays "pure" but keeps the extra stations there. What do you think? Also, considering this link maybe we should change the Sandton bit. ChrisDHDR 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The collapsible part works better than I expected.
On the second question, I do not think it is needed... The second tunnel is there since the airport link will have a separate platform (Marlboro station too has different platforms for the E-W and N-S links, btw.). I believe other route diagrams do not show this level of detail? You can see a more precise diagrams of these sections at http://www.gautrain.co.za/contents/DFEMP/2007/drawings/CJV-ALL-DWG-2000-0209-02.pdf (Sandton), and http://www.gautrain.co.za/contents/DFEMP/2007/drawings/CJV-ALL-DWG-2000-0213-03.pdf and http://www.gautrain.co.za/contents/DFEMP/2007/drawings/CJV-ALL-DWG-2000-0214-02.pdf (Marlboro).
Regards, G.A.Stalk 04:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marlboro junction

[edit]

What do you think about about the new Marlboro junction? Personally I'm mixed - even though it is more accurate it seems a bit over the top to me. ChrisDHDR 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: it seems a bit unnecessary, there is very little gain by including it. G.A.Stalk 10:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
checkY undid it. ChrisDHDR 13:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesfield station

[edit]

The map here shows a connection between Metrorail and the Gautrain, however none of the other sources show it. Should there be a connexion or not? ChrisDHDR 13:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None yet. There might be a future link to the Isando station,[1] or A new Metrorail station will be built at Rhodesfield[2]Business plan (Page 14). G.A.Stalk 17:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read that a new station is planned at Modderfontein, a walkway is planned between Hatfield and Hartebeesspruit, and a tunnel/bridge is planned between Rhodesfield and Isando or a new station at Rhodesfield. Do you think they should been shown, and if yes, how? ChrisDHDR 20:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are finalized yet, I would ignore it until there are formal announcements. It is quite likely that those plans have been changed since the article was written. G.A.Stalk 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colors of lines

[edit]

We are currently running into a problem with the lines since, according to User:AlisonW/Rail_Icons#Legend, light colors means lines under construction, and dark colors means existing lines. Furthermore, Blue is for Light rail or metro rail, and red for heavy rail.

Since Gautrain is "high speed" and has few stations, I am happy classifying it as "Heavy rail", however, the existing Metrorail is, in my opinion, exactly that. Thus the Gautrain route should be light red, and Metrorail, dark blue.

Do you agree on the above?

Now the question: I presume this was done due to the lack of icons. Which icons are required if we are to correct the situation? (The best option would be to repeat the route diagram above, using the correct codes. I might be able to create the missing icons, and when we are done we can substitute the correct diagram with the updated one.)

G.A.Stalk 08:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the the Gautrain should stay in red since that is the colour for the discussed line. Also pink is for either under construction/planned lines or other lines than the discussed line, however since the lines in pink here have mainly a metro-like service they could be put in blue (though new icons would need to be made and that would neglect that they have also long distance trains as well - see Image:Metrorail Gauteng.png). ChrisDHDR 15:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Metrorail is distinctly different, I would rather using blue. While you are correct about it having long distance trains, these, and freight, are a minority. Further arguments include:
  • Gautrain is high speed, Metrorail is not.
  • Metrorail has frequent stations close to one another, Gautrain does not.
  • Metrorail is narrow gauge, Gautrain is standard gauge.
  • If details about future expansion become available, using pink would be rather confusing.
  • Pink is more often used for expansion than other rails, this may cause confusion.
What icons would be required if we are to make this change?
G.A.Stalk 11:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't reply sooner. As I said below I think it is almost perfect in its current form, and in saying that I think that the current red/pink format is the most suited:
  • Putting the other tracks in blue will neglect the other freight and long distance passenger services
    • However Image:Metrorail Gauteng.png shows no long distance passenger services on the parallel bit around Hatfield - a possible exception?
  • In a South African rail context, Metrorail in standard gauge and the Gautrain is in broad gauge
  • There are no known expansion plans at the moment, however if details about future expansion come about we could use dotted lines like at {{LGV Est}}.
ChrisDHDR 13:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider adding a legend to the diagram as was done with {{LGV Est}}, as the diagram does not use the standard legend (pink=to be built).
While there are no plans for future extention, the Sandton-ORT track is planned to start operations ~ 2010, and the rest ~2011. Hence it would be preferable to use a different color altogether for the existing line.
The long distance passenger routes (indicated in grey on the diagram), fall outside of Metrorail altogether, within Transnet's Shosholoza Meyl, in fact. You need to consider the amount of Metrorail/Long distance and freight on the rails when deciding the colors; which I cannot really help with. Do consider simplifying the bit around Pretoria/Hatfield though. (See Sandbox above; the parallel lines seems a bit "forced" in the current version)
G.A.Stalk 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks bad, but I think that I now prefer your idea. Therefore the current train network would be in red (being an existing heavy rail network) and the Gautrain would be in pink (being a planned railway). Any comments? ChrisDHDR 14:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how this works; it should avoid confusion in the future, considering the Sandton-ORT link will be in service ~9 months before the rest. G.A.Stalk 21:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding you. Do you prefer the status quo or the proposed version? ChrisDHDR 09:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed version. Sorry for the confusion. G.A.Stalk 10:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

[edit]

[edit]

Too complicated

[edit]

I am beginning to wonder whether the diagram is not getting to complicated, with important items getting lost in the details? An alternative would be to create a SVG based map, to scale, which shows these items in more clarity than the current diagram could ever do, but without important items being overwhelmed by less important items.

I have an image like Image:London Underground Zone 1.svg in mind, showing stations, major motorways, metrorail when within the map's borders (with or without stations?), viaducts, and underground sections (using the existing legend).

To do this, we would require a source which is GFDL compatible, though.

Your thoughts?

G.A.Stalk 08:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's perfect in its current form: it shows stations and their distances, bridges and tunnels, crossings with other railways and major roads, and I don't see which of these details are more important than the others and need to be emphasised. The SVG map already exists as the interactive map and the Gautrain website if more details are needed; and having this diagram and the SVG map would just clutter the Gautrain article, maybe even make this template redundant. Thanks for asking, ChrisDHDR 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rail reserve

[edit]

The rail reserve can now be found on Google Earth here (Link obtained from the official site). It seems mostly accurate. The main difference being that it shows two tracks from Sandton through Park Station, though only one will be built initially. It should be possible to identify whether any major details are not shown on this map by quickly scanning through the route. G.A.Stalk 11:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it showed a couple of crossovers, do you think they should be added to the template or is that a bit excessive? ChrisDHDR 14:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS:I sent an email to Gautrain seeing if they had any remarks about the diagram, lets hope so.
The crossovers may get a bit excessive, there are a lot of minor bridges, overpasses and underpasses along the route.
Let me know what happens to the email.
G.A.Stalk 04:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox merge

[edit]

I recommend adding the route diagram to the infobox in the same way as {{Infobox rail line}} does. Refer to Talk:Gautrain#Infobox in this regard. G.A.Stalk 10:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update soon

[edit]

The code below should replace the code on the template on 8 June 2010:

Suggestion for rearrangement

[edit]

Might this rearrangement perhaps be clearer for distances and so on? - htonl (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

That arrangement was in use at some point, but was changed when the route diagram was moved from the article to this template. I guess it was because it was deemed inaccurate (see SVG on right)? G.A.Stalk 05:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Route map

.

It doesn't seem to me that my proposed arrangement is really any more of a distortion, geographically speaking, than the one currently in use, although I suppose it does depend on how you judge "distortion". It would, though, have the advantange that reading off the distances from top to bottom would make more sense. - htonl (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update soon

[edit]

The code below should replace the code on the template on 2 August 2011:

Terminus

[edit]

This template currently shows the southern terminus as "Park Station"; I edited this recently to "Park Station, Johannesburg", to say where it was. This was reverted almost immediately, with the edit summary "totally unnecessary—the parent article makes the location clear".
To reply, I wouldn't have added the location if I didn't think it necessary, and no, it wasn't immediately clear to me which end was which, even with that clue to work on. It also seems a bit eccentric that a map purporting to show a railway line between two cities should deliberately not mention one of them (and contrasts with pretty much every other rail route template we have, viz. here, or here); and if the reason is 'the parent article makes it clear', then what is the point of having a template at all? All the places on it are 'in the parent article'.
So, given that you don't think it's necessary, and I do, is there any technical or policy reason why this change shouldn't be made? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we compromise on {{STN|Johannesburg Park}}, which displays as Johannesburg Park? This satisfies both the requirements I perceive, which is that we reveal which city the station is in and that we wrap everything up in templates rather than simply using a wikilink. Certes (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is "Johannesburg Park Station" so I think that, or "Johannesburg Park", would be appropriate. We don't have "Station" in any of the other names so I'm leaning towards "Johannesburg Park". - htonl (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johannesburg Park sounds reasonable, so I will make the change. Useddenim (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say that we shouldn't use Johannesburg Park Station because the Gautrain terminus is a different station to JPS, being adjacent to the existing main-line station; but after following the link here it turns out it just redirects to JPS: So yes, just the template without a wikilink works fine. I would suggest, however, to use Park Station, Johannesburg, which also redirects to JPS; it will present on the page here with both station name and city, while showing that it is a different station. I also propose to refine the PSJ redirect to a section on the JPS page describing the Gautrain station, until it can be expanded into a discrete article. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And, Useddenim, can we finish the discussion before you implement your chosen solution? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Park Station, Johannesburg also sounds good to me but I foresee objections that it is a simple wikilink rather than a template. Certes (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, I have to confess to being a bit confused, now. What is the issue with using wikilinks? Is it simply aesthetic, or is there a technical problem with using them in templates? I can see the value in the STN and rws templates when the articles involved all have station or railway station in their titles, but what about those that don't? The French Gare du whatevers spring to mind, or the German Hauptbannhofs, or the Czech hl.n's, for example? Or, if it is imperative to use one, should we create a redirect specifically for the purpose? (one more probably won't make much difference) [[Park Station, Johannesburg (Gautrain station) could be templated as {{rws|Park Station, Johannesburg|Gautrain, couldn't it? Which would display with the station name and the city. Would that work? Moonraker12 (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave others to explain the issue with using wikilinks rather than templates. Personally I find wikilinks much simpler to create, understand and fix, but other editors are very keen that templates must always be used instead.
Yes, if we can agree on the text X to display then we may be able to create a redirect "X railway station" and use {{rws|X}}. If the title "X railway station" is already in use then we can call the redirect "X railway station (Y)" instead and use {{rws|X|Y}}, Y being any suitable qualifier. That should have the same effect as simply writing [[Johannesburg Park Station|X]] but satisfy the template requirement. Certes (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I'm easy on the method used (though I'd agree, wikilinks are simpler than templates for most things). My concern is only that the city is displayed (so that it's immediately apparent which end is which) and that the link goes to the right station (I've cobbled together a section at JPS on the Gautrain station and fixed the redirects). A wikilink is the simplest way to do that; neither of the redirects are suitable for templating, and I've sandboxed a couple of formats (like the one above, which puts station in the wrong place, for some reason) but none of them worked; the nearest to it was {{STN|Johannesburg, Park|(Gautrain), which gives a link [[Johannesburg, Park Station (Gautrain) and displays Johannesburg, Park. But if there are no technical or policy reasons why we can't use wikilinks I'm tempted to suggest it's up to whoever insists on using templates to come up with one that does the job as well as the link option. Moonraker12 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a redirect (Johannesburg Park station (Gautrain)) which points to Johannesburg Park Station#Gautrain station and that {{rws}} happily displays as Johannesburg Park. Useddenim (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<od>Useddenim: Aside from the fact that your redirect missed the comma out (which was there for a reason) and that the name of the terminus is Park Station (both capitalized), not Johannesburg Park (which is the main line station; see here) the issue is still to display the station name correctly and the city where it's situated. Which your solution doesn't. And you still haven't explained why it is so important to use a template rather than a wikilink, which does the job easily. Maybe it'd be better if you joined the conversation rather than just dropping in and imposing your solution on the matter. Moonraker12 (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You seem to know about templates; do you know why {{rws|Park Station|Gautrain, which is there currently, links to [[Park Station (Gautrain station) (ie. adding the station part to the disambiguator) ; while {{rws|Park Station, Johannesburg|Gautrain doesn't (ie it wants to link to [[Park Station, Johannesburg railway station (Gautrain), instead)? Moonraker12 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the way {{rws}} parses things out. It looks for names in this order:
  1. Xxx railway station (Location)
  2. Xxx (Location) railway station
  3. Xxx railway station, Location
  4. Xxx station (Location)
  5. Xxx (System station)
  6. Xxx (System)
and stops when it finds a match, or else redlinks to Xxx railway station, Location.
Moonraker12: unless I'm misreading things, it appears that the consensus is that Johannesburg Park is acceptable to everyone except you. Useddenim (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misreading things. Johannesburg Park was an early suggestion, but it's already been pointed out that neither the link nor the display would be correct. There's no consensus on the project for intentionally adding wrong information. I've said what the aim is (link to the Gautrain station and display both its name and the city where it is located) and suggested a remedy (a piped wikilink with both, such as [[Park Station (Gautrain station)|Park Station, Johannesburg, or somesuch). If you are invested in using a template then please make a suggestion that fulfills the requirement and we'll see what the consensus is on that. Moonraker12 (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the rws template would work it's way through this list to find a match? Tricky... I'm no less inclined to think that templates make good servants but poor masters... Moonraker12 (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, {{rws}} is just a formatting template that creates the wikilink based on some standard rules, for the editor's convenience. There is no reason that it has to be used. If we come to a consensus on what should be displayed, and {{rws}} can't do that, then we should not use it in this case. Templates are there to make it easier for us, we should not have to work harder to fit in with the template. - htonl (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Htonl: OK, good to know. Do you have any thoughts on what should be displayed? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that "Park station (Gautrain)" or "Park station, Johannesburg" would work. "Park station (Gautrain station)" would just be redundant (WP:CONCISE). Last I looked, we're using lower-case for "station" in any case of a location-descriptive name (rather than a non-descriptive, "evocative" proper name like Grand Central Station). As for how it should display in the template, I would think "Park" or "Park station" or whatever, if it's already clear that the geographical context is Johannesburg.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier I suggested "Johannesburg Park" but I've changed my mind. I have looked on Google Street View at the signage outside the stations, and seems to be the case that this Gautrain station is in fact called "Park Station" with the word "Station" included, whereas the other stations are just named e.g. "Rosebank", "Pretoria", "Hatfield". In other words, SMcCandlish, I think that the "Station" in "Park Station" is in the same sense as "Grand Central Station". This makes sense to me - "Rosebank" is the Gautrain station in the neigbourhood of Rosebank; whereas "Park Station" is not the Gautrain station at a park, or a place called Park, but the Gautrain station at the existing location called Park Station.
So I would propose something like {{rws|Park Station|Gautrain}} {{small|(Johannesburg)}}, which produces "Park Station (Johannesburg)" - htonl (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the upper-casing. This is not like Grand Central Station, which is not descriptive (it's basically a marketing opinion). The "station" after "Park" is included as natural disambiguation, and it's capitalized on signage because signage capitalizes everything. We have absolutely no reason to diverge from our now-standardized naming pattern for this case. It is not magically special.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this may be a case like Shanghai Railway Station station where the local transit station is named after the mainline station and is not merely a station but a Station station. Certes (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. If there's not something called "Park Station" there, independently of this station, and for which this station was named, then we have no reason to believe this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are any number of possibilities here. To take a related example from the other side of the Atlantic, New York City has two major train stations: Grand Central Terminal and Pennsylvania Station (New York City). These are variously referred to as Grand Central, New York Grand Central, Penn Station, New York Penn Station, and New York Penn, depending on context. It's not unusual for them to be referred to in maps simply as "New York", especially if only one is shown (common), and most other stations on the map are indicated by locality. "Johannesburg" would seem acceptable in this context, as would "Park Station". "Park station" would be inappropriate given that it's apparently a proper name; if decapitalized it should be omitted.
Regarding templates, {{rws}} is an editor's convenience, and I think it tends to be unnecessary. It's one thing when you're using a template like {{station link}} or {{amtk}} which uses data modules and can update the link automatically if another moves; it's another when you're using rws or stn whose only purpose is to save someone writing out the wikilink. Mackensen (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that in the context of long-distance trains (Shosholoza Meyl etc.) "Johannesburg" is acceptable, as it's the only long-distance station in Johannesburg. In the context of Metrorail and Gautrain, Park Station is one of many stations in Johannesburg so more specificity is required. Entirely agree as to templates. - htonl (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<od> Can I ask where this is up to? (my apologies for not replying sooner; my internet access is limited at the moment)
We seem to have established that the correct name for the Gautrain's southern terminal is Park Station (with caps), and that it's a different entity to the main line station (Johannesburg Park), despite them being on the same article page. Also that it isn't essential to use a template to display the name(s), although Htonl's suggestion does in fact accomplish this. But the original issue still remains: Adding the city name for the terminal, as it isn't an integral part of the station name. Are you saying, SMcCandlish, that it isn't necessary to do this? Because this is the point at issue... Moonraker12 (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanton:  I was checking in for an answer to this, but I notice from your comments above that you don't agree with the capitalization of the station name either. The evidence for that being the way of it is shown in the signage, and on the map of the area; do you have any evidence that it is something else? And are you arguing for a change from the current format?
Also, for the original question, are you saying that the city name isn't necessary, that we should continue to omit it? What would be the reason for doing that? Moonraker12 (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about "evidence", it's about WP writing in a consistent style. See umpteen zillion previous RMs of over-capitalized "station" and "line" in these article names (WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:NCCAPS), and MOS:CAPS generally, and WP:OFFICIALNAME, and WP:NOT. WP is not written in randomly varying style to mimic bureaucratese or any other lingo, and especially not signage, which is a mixture of bureaucratese ("government caps") and marketing style ("use capital letters to get attention"). Mimicking signage is exactly the same as mimicking product logos and album covers. WP does not care that the cover of "Do It Like a Dude" is misspelled with a capital "A" (a style you will not find in any style guide ever published). WP doesn't care that Sony's logo looks like "SONY"; all the MOS:TM arguments also apply against "government stuff" (and non-profits, and diffuse social movements, and ...); it's not just for-profit corporate style that it addresses. If we mimicked signage, we would have an article at "STOP sign" not at stop sign. (PS: This isn't meant to sound "short" or "testy", I just have very limited WP time today and am zipping through stuff as fast as I can.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you saying we should ignore the actual/official/common name for this station because it doesn't accord with some notion of consistency in WP's style? I'm pretty sure we have a guideline about that somewhere.
The only reason the signage was mentioned was as an illustration of what the station name actually is; there are other sources... Again, do you have any evidence that it isn't the station name? And there's nothing particularly unusual about stations having the word 'Station' in their names (the various Union Stations spring to mind, and all the Penn Stations, and a lot of the Central Stations – some of which are capitalized, and some not, as a blow to our desire of consistency)
But, this is very much going off at a tangent, which probably needs a separate discussion if you wish to challenge the capitalization of the station name: As I've mentioned, several times, the original issue was whether to include the city name for the terminus, which you intimated was unnecessary. Is that your position? And if so, why would that be? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Gautrain_route_diagram&oldid=1231214903"